Section 2 source distribution terms (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))

[Karsten M. Self]

on Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 11:59:10AM -0400, Greg London (greglondon at oaktech.com) wrote:

> It seems to me that the MIT does not meet item #2 of the OSD, then.
> The APSL goes above and beyond #2 requirements. But the MIT license
> seems to fall short. 

The MIT license allows for distribution of source.  This is in
compliance with the OSD.  You raise a reasonable but small point.

The OSD is used to ceritfy licenses, not distributions under a license.
However, the language of section two speaks to the program and
distribution of same, under a license.  It seems to me that either the
OSD should restrict itself to discussing licenses, or qualify licenses
which may be used in a proprietary sense by discussing a qualifying
distribution.

The reason for this confusion, I suspect, is the OSD's origin as the
DFSG:  the Debian Free Software Guidelines.  The DFSG is the guiding
principle that governs inclusion of packages within the core Debian
distribution.  As such, it applies to distribution of programs, which is
to include the interaction of license on actual distribution.

Current language:

    2. Source Code

    The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
    source code as well as compiled form.  Where some form of a product
    is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized
    means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable
    reproduction cost -- preferably, downloading via the Internet
    without charge.  The source code must be the preferred form in which
    a programmer would modify the program.   Deliberately obfuscated
    source code is not allowed.  Intermediate forms such as the output
    of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

Proposed language:

    2. Source Code

    The license most provide for distribution in source code as well as
    compiled form.  Where some form of a product is not distributed with
    source code, there must be a well publicized means of obtaining the
    source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost --
    preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge or access
    restrictions.  The source code so offered must be in the preferred
    form in which a programmer would modify the program.  Deliberately
    obfuscated source code does not qualify.  Intermediate forms such as
    the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.  For
    licenses in which distribution without source is allowed, an OSD
    Qualifying Distribution shall be defined as an offering of the
    software, under qualifying license terms, with source or an offer of
    source as described in this paragraph.

All other sections of the OSD speak in terms of "the license" or "the
rights attached to the program".  Section 2 is the odd man out.

Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?              Home of the brave
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/                    Land of the free
   Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA!  http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire                      http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20010925/ab4c1ddb/attachment.sig>